Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "85 science fiction authors including Iain M Banks, Larry Niven, Stephen Hunt, Greg Bear and Michael Moorcock have written an open letter of protest to the BBC complaining of disrespect towards the genre, when, during an entire day of coverage of fiction by the BBC, not a single SF, fantasy or horror book was looked at. Here's the original article that sparked the open letter, along with updates. The British prime minister, David Cameron, when asked to comment, said that he doesn't have a favorite genre, so I guess he's not taking Greg Bear books to bed either!"

Something for children, adolescents, and overgrown man-children who lack the sophistication to appreciate the subtle beauty of the real world. Never mind that that is simply not true, as the genre includes some of the most beautiful and mature artistic works ever published. People who are into "literature" as opposed to "reading books" tend to be elitist snobs.

Am I really? How exactly was I condescending to mainstream literature? I did say that people who were into "literature" as opposed to "reading books" tend to be elitist snobs, but that isn't slandering mainstream literature, or even the realm of literary criticism. I was merely pointing out that, if you characterize yourself as enjoying "literature" as opposed to "reading" you may be an elitist snob. Just say it to yourself: "I like reading books." Now say "I enjoy literature." Which sounded snobbier to you?

Psychological projection is the habit of ascribing to others those parts of your own personality that you refuse to accept. I accept that I am opinionated and critical. Therefore, projection is hardly the correct term, Mr. Hanky. Now, are you mad because you characterize yourself as enjoying literature, or is it something more personal?

"I was merely pointing out that if you do A instead of B, you may be an elitist snob"

I'll merely point out that you said "tend to be elitist snobs" not "may be elitist snobs". I'll merely add that people who make a negative generalization about another group and then defend it with "I merely said they may be that way" are generally assholes. I don't know you personally so I can't say whether you fall into that group, or just near it.

I stand by my characterization of people who style themselves as lovers of "literature," as opposed to "books," as elitist snobs. Not all of them, of course, but enough to make the characterization accurate. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. Did you major in literature? Because it sounds as though you were personally offended by what I wrote, enough so that you felt compelled to insult me, personally. If so, you have my apologies, and my assurance that YOU are not one of those elitist snobs I was referring

I was mostly pointing out that when defending your position you switched the phrase "tend to be" for "may be". I can't really disagree that people who would say "I love literature" tend to be snobbier than people who say "I love books". What I disagree with is the idea that people who love literature would ignore a superbly written sci-fi book out of pure snobbery.

I wasn't really talking about people who actually love literature. I was talking about the literary part of the "art world," a rarefied place where self promotion, hucksterism, petty jealousies and ambition rule over talent and technical skill. It's a rather elitist world, the art world. Outsiders are not especially welcome there, (look at the condescending exhibitions of "outsider art." That's what they call it.) and Sci Fi writers are still outsiders to the art world.

"I Like reading books" sounds like someone just enjoys telling people they read.Usually the follow it up with th size of their library. "I enjoy literature" tells me they enjoy reading for reading sake.

When you start trying to define literature in a manner that include book you like, then you get into snobbery.

And you sound personally offended. Why is that? I thought it was common knowledge that the world of "literature" is full of self involved, egotistical failures who can't produce anything of artistic merit, and therefore tear down others who actually can.

" I thought it was common knowledge that the world of "literature" is full of self involved, egotistical failures who can't produce anything of artistic merit, and therefore tear down others who actually can."

you mean like John Milton?

Literature is the art of written word. Literally familiar of letters.

When you say X book is literature,and Y book is not. Then you enter into the land of snobs

Now my hypocrite radar is going off. How is your critique of me any different from my critique of elitist literary critics? How is it any different from their critique of literature for that matter? It's all opinion anyhow. Either don't critique, or don't insult others for doing so.

No, you just denigrated me, personally, which of course makes it okay and not hypocritical at all. I'm sorry, but the literary portion of the art world is just as snobby and elitist as the rest of the art world. Been to any "outsider art" exhibitions recently? Come on, even The Simpsons made fun of the elitism and snobbery of the art world, are you really saying that it is a model of egalitarianism and meritocracy? Or are you claiming the literary part of it is different than the visual arts part?

Why there are people in the literature world you are snobs, they are actually in the minority. Sadly, because they are snobs they insist on flapping their gums in an effort to deride everyone else opinion. So they seem like the majority.

Are you comparing what I wrote to the ravings of Mel Gibson now? The lengths we will go to to justify our actions, huh? I'm sure people do think that mainstream literature includes some beautiful and artistic stuff, because it does, and I never said otherwise. Now it sounds like you are denying that Sci Fi includes beautiful and artistic works, the way you take issue with me describing it that way. Really, the more I read, the more it sounds as though you absolutely HATE having something like sci fi compare

So if I distinguish myself from the elitist snobs, I'm an elitist snob? And if I admit to being an elitist snob, I'm an elitist snob. So I guess in your world, I'm an elitist snob no matter what I do. Good. Now I know how much weight to give your opinion.

Did I label "mainstream lit" as snobby? Where? Quote me the place where I labeled mainstream lit as snobby. For a person who apparently enjoys reading, you sure don't seem to sweat the comprehension part.

For the record, I said that people who are into "literature" as opposed to "reading books" are elitist snobs. I did not distinguish my way of enjoying reading as superior to and more educated than their way of enjoying reading. Not even close. I also did not slander all people who enjoy literature, nor all

the genre includes some of the most beautiful and mature artistic works ever published

I love science fiction, but this is a statement I just can't get behind.

In fact I think that any book which did deserve that praise wouldn't be part of the science-fiction genre, in the same way that while there is something of a mystery at the heart of Hamlet, but it's not part of the mystery genre. Science-fiction isn't just stories set in futuristic or fantastic settings, it's stories designed to stimulate the thought o

I would posit that you simply haven't read much good science fiction. I've compiled a short list down below, maybe start there and then get back to me. And I'm sorry, but there is quite a bit of pretentious trash called "great literature." Literature is part of the art world, where personality and self promotion matter more than real talent.

I've read pretty much everything by Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, and Niven, so I've certainly read a lot of good hard sci-fi. Of your list, I've only read Mieville, and I'll agree with you that he's a very good writer. I wouldn't be surprised to find him on the 2012 BBC Book Night list. In fact, it's funny that you mention him since he gets a lot of credit with the elitist literary critics you dislike so much.

“I’m not trying to distance myself from the genre I came out of, but it makes me really ha

I've read all of them and honestly I'd say that while all of them were great at stories and creating worlds they weren't amazing as writers.They're all fantastic authors but there is a difference.

Some authors are fantastic writers, they can make any story amazing.They can write being a street sweeper or bin man and have the audience hanging on their every word or write about going for lunch and simply make it great fun to read.

Some authors on the other hand are simply wonderful at creating worlds and playin

Genres have their own great writers, but they're just not the same as literature.

This statement simply makes no sense.

Sci-fi IS literature. Saying that this or that written story isn't literature is no different than other subject snobs that say this or that OS isn't a "real OS", this or that isn't are "real computer", or this or that isn't "real music". All these statement show a distinct lack of understanding of the subject matter.

All right, I'll backtrack on that, and say that "any book which did deserve that praise would be literature as well as science-fiction" and thus be subject to the very same snobbery that the OP was deriding. The qualities which make a good genre novel are not the same as those which make a good literary novel, and it's extremely rare to find one with both.

Never mind that that is simply not true, as the genre includes some of the most beautiful and mature artistic works ever published.

When the authors win Nobel Prizes (eg. Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Doris Lessing), then it's not considered science fiction or fantasy, then it is literature.

They do this because the ethos of the literary critic is grounded in resentment. They resent not having talent themselves, they resent the lack of attention given to their field, and they greatly resent how the scientific rationalist worldview does not consider mere rhetoric as a valid form of argument. They value opinion over evidence, and in that respect they are no different than the talking heads on Fox News. You must flatter them and their ideology before they will accept your fantastic literature as literature.

What they're too stupid to comprehend is that all literature descends from fantasy. Keeping stories plausible is a modern invention. In every culture, the original fiction always involved gods, magic, and feats of heroism.

Right on the money. It's a cliquish little world, full of self important people who couldn't produce anything of real value. And from some of the replies I have read here, apparently some of them read Slashdot.

What about the really old-school authors?Asimov's End of Eternity and The Gods Themselves are two of my favourite books (although they haven't aged well), and Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 is still scarily relevant today as it was when it was written (And is a damn site less anachronistic than Asimov's future predictions) *and* Fahrenheit 451 has some excellent characterisation, is choc full of the allusions and metaphors that lit-lovers seem to gobble up.Before he died, Arthur C Clarke did some colabs with Stephen Baxter and Time's Eye is one of my favourite reads of the last decade. At its core it's is an exploration and deconstruction of what people of all ages past expected of the future, and how they react when they actually see it (and not in a goofy 'Bill and Ted' way, this is Arthur C Clarke after all)

At the very least Fahrenheit 451 should have been mentioned. I still hold that above 1984 as the most portentous prediction in sci-fi, plus, it's got government sanctioned arson and that's always a bonus.

If you were to actually read about the whole ordeal, you would understand that the program these people are complaining about (called The Books We Really Read) was about bestsellers, not literary fiction. Think James Patterson, Nora Roberts and company. "Literature", meaning serious fiction that is meant to be artistically challenging, was not a part of the program.

That has been made more painfully clear to me recently. My 6 year old son, (now 7) joined a book club a few months before his birthday. When discussing the books that would be on the agenda, our suggestions of age appropriate books like "The Magic Tree House" series were dismissed because the other parents wanted it to be more focused on "good literature". They were suggesting books like Moby Dick. This is for a group of readers between the ages of 6 and 8. What was decided was that each month, "the kids" would take a turn at picking the book for that month. While we are making our son read the books himself, it has become blatantly obvious, that not one single book has been read by even one of the other children. It turns out that all of the other kids parents are at best buying them "books on tape" or renting them the movie adaptations of the books.

This month they are doing "Tom Sawyer". This is not what would be called an easy read for a teen ager or even many adults. My son is doing it, but with great effort. The other parents are just renting the movies or cartoons. Then patting themselves on the back for exposing their kids to great "liturature". It is sad.

Anything by Iain M. Banks (or plain Iain Banks if you want to read some of his multi award winning non sci-fi stuff). Anything by China Mieville. Greg Egan's "Permutation City" Olaf Stapledon's "Last and First Men" and "Starmaker." Anything by Greg Bear. That's just off the top of my head. Never read "His Dark Materials," heard it was good, though.

Sadly, you heard wrong. The trilogy could have been brilliant, but didn't quite live up to the promise of the first book. It's a good read, but somewhat of a muddled mess at times, with an unsatisfying ending. Quite disappointing.

And while I haven't finished the last one I've found them to be an enjoyable romp.

I wouldn't disagree with that. The books were enjoyable and fun enough. But part of the enjoyment (for me at least) was the anticipation of the full exposition of the ideas that were hinted at early on. That didn't happen, which leads to the aforementioned disappointment. This kind of thing seems to be quite common in recent years, for some reason. The Matrix Trilogy is a classic example, but television series seem to be particularly prone to this. The writers are skilled at setting up a story in a c

It's not influential as literature. Orwell's aspirations had more to do with political commentary than art, and it shows.
So, it's a good example indeed: genre fiction, by definition, is limited in its artistic aspirations, and need not be taken seriously as literature. I say that as someone who has been entertained by both SF and detective fiction, mainly before my 15th birthday.

That's because realistic utopias without external threats would hold absolutely no dramatic tension. You could basically write, "And they all lived happily ever after" and be done with it. So utopias in fiction have to be either false utopias, or faced with a credible existential threat.

The Federation is a post scarcity society. Any post scarcity society where money still exists would be more of a totalitarian nightmare than a utopia. And nothing about any of the stories implies the Federation is a military state, that just happens to be the only part with any dramatic tension (see above.)

You kind of see what it would be like in one of the DS9 episodes where shapshifters take over starfleet and Security officers start patrolling the streets with phasers. While it might be a utopian post-scarcity society, it's only one emergency and a call to the transporter room to turn it into 1984.

Like it or not (and I suspect most Slashdotters will fall firmly into the "not" camp), we're living in an age where people are turning back to time-honored traditions and values. Science fiction is littered with themes and concepts that a growing majority of readers find thoroughly objectionable (e.g., evolutionistic biology, geologic and cosmic timescales on the order of billions of years, multiculturalism, man-made climate change, collectivism/communism, etc.)

If "we" includes USA, then maybe you have a point, though even then it's grossly exaggerated. The rest of the world certainly doesn't find "evolutionistic biology", or billions-old universe objectionable.

Please pay attention to the causality problem: that which you supposedly fix now will only be delayed 30,000 years; and the currents of time will draw you back to the problem. Only 30,000 years from now the lack of proper literacy will cause the universe to be on the cusp of a multidimensional implosion.

I keep digging, but TFA has no links at all, and searches for the program's name don't turn much up, either (though the presenter looks super-nerdy cute in her pics and you'd think she'd be into the skiffy...)

Oh, and the summary neglects to point out that the Beeb has already promised to do an episode on Genre Fiction, so the crowd's already breaking up.

Speaking of utter lack of links, because this was completely devoid in the description and the articles themselves, here are some I found relevant from comments below other articles and searching for a couple of minutes:

Several of those at least sound like they could be Sci-fi, or at least scientific:

_Agent Zigzag_, an algebraic thriller_Cloud Atlas_, about near-planet astrogation_Case Histories_, about psychology or sociology_Dissolution_, when chemistry attacks_Half of a Yellow Sun_, set on a planet in orbit about a very peculiar star_Life of Pi_, c'mon, it's got freaking PI in it!_Love in the Time of Cholera_, when biology attacks_Northern Lights_, the search for meaning in natural ionic discharge_The Reluctant Fundamen

... "It won't make any difference." The literary establishment has not only decided that anything but "serious," contemporary*, mainstream fiction isn't Literature, and any protest from authors in other** genres will not only not change their minds, but will in fact solidify their position. They'll see it as further proof of the inherent immaturity of those who write (and, by extension, those who read) "genre fiction," and be further reassured in their smugness.

* Exceptions may be made for historical fiction, as long as the history in question is within the last century or so.

** Literary fiction is a genre of its own, with rules far more rigid than those of SF and fantasy and at least as rigid as those of horror, romance and Westerns, but you'll never get them to admit it.

Michael Chabon [wikipedia.org] is a pretty notable exception to this "rule" of yours (though he covers more genres than just SF, he is probably the only author with both a Pulitzer and a Hugo on his shelf); Vonnegut and Bradbury likewise, if less so. Norman Mailer openly wrote fantasy [wikipedia.org]; Margaret Atwood used to deny it [wikipedia.org], but a large chunk of her output is SF, pure and simple.

Less obvious examples of "it ain't necessarily so" include Joanna Russ [wikipedia.org], William Gibson (if you need a link, you need to get out more), and, posthumously,

I'd add Kazuo Ishiguro to the list for "Never Let Me Go", which was very well accepted by the literary establishment, and was somewhat science fiction.

Most lists I've seen of the best books of the last 150 years or so include some science fiction such as Orwell's '1984', Huxley's 'Brave New World', Vonnegut's 'Slaughterhouse Five', and Burgess' 'A Clockwork Orange'.

I think literary establishment acceptance depends on several factors:-- Writing other 'literary' books that aren't science-fiction-- Using SF to

F is a snobbish crowd every bit as much as mainstream, and attempts by more mainstream authors to "dabble" in SF are generally scorned in SF circles.

Because it's usually lousy SF, clearly written by people who have no knowledge of or respect for the genre. I've lost count of the number of major literary fiction authors I've seen lauded for writing Bold! Daring! Innovative! works of science fiction -- except it's not marketed as science fiction, the authors and publishers will vehemently deny that it's scieince fiction, and if it had been written and marketed as science fiction it would have been old hat fifty years ago. If a Margaret Atwood or a Corma

Condolences to the UK, but the US doesn't fare much better. Decades ago, NBC was in on the ground floor of a multibillion dollar franchise ("Star Trek"). They moved its time slot capriciously, as if trying to lose viewership, and cut its budget mercilessly. In its last season, just about every set was nothing but cheapo paper mache boulders. Then they cancelled it at the height of its popularity. In other words, they underestimated the public's appetite for sci-fi by tens of billions, dollars or pounds, take your pick.

Now we have a cable channel dedicated to sci-fi, and they changed their name to "Syfy". How's that's supposed to be pronounced, "siffie"? They used to produce remakes of Dune that were more faithful to the books, but "Syfy" now only makes end-of-the-world and big-animal movies. They've lost faith in sci-fi too, as much as NBC did.

To be fair, they eventually realized that Star Trek was worth a hell of a lot -- IMO none of the later series ever came anywhere close to the first one, but you can't accuse the networks of not supporting them.

Of course I remember going into a video store and asked them where Apollo 13 was. I wanted to cry when they told me it was in sci-fi! I had to ask why but all I got was because it was about space! Ever get the feeling that a large percentage of the population really doesn't understand? Of course I also had a discussion very artsy friend of mine about Apollo 13 and how I really thought it should have gotten best picture over Braveheart. She actually told me that Braveheart was a better movie because you knew how Apollo 13 ended before you saw the movie. I had to say "You didn't know the english won?"Good freaking heavens.

I'm taking a course in Science, Technology and Society. Apollo 13 was shown at movie night a couple of weeks back. The best part is that one of the Grumman engineers (the gentleman who designed the thruster control stick module) was the instructor and we had a nice, long Q&A afterward.

To be fair, it was only after they announced the cancellation of the series that decent episodes started airing...

Stargate Universe was a series I was looking forward to, and was massively disappointed in when it first came out, in fact I very nearly stopped watching it all together. The more recent episodes though have actually improved a lot and I've started to actually enjoy the show (of course only after they announced the cancellation did the series seem to improve)

Mmm. SG:U started off *very* slowly. It was only after season 1's two parter that things started coming together. However, it really does smell slightly of that spoof episode they did where they turned it into a teen drama with over-sexed teenage versions of the team getting off with each other (I swear in the first 12 episodes there was atleast one sex scene, from a series which had less than that in about 12 years.) It wore off after said two-parter and started focusing on story arcs and proper character

Goddamn "BBC America" has been pushing itself as the go-to sci-fi / fantasy station [bbcamerica.com], including both British shows (Doctor Who, Primeval, Being Human) and decidedly non-British shows (ST:TNG, X-Files).

The biggest problem with the BBCA is that they HAVE plenty of British shows, even Genre show, that are worth airing in place of ST:TNG and the like. Jeckyll, Strange, Ultraviolet, Outcasts, etc, etc. Not to mention all the non-genre programming. Yes, fine - skip the soaps. But what about stuff like Newswatch, 10 O'Clock Live, etc?

And hey, Primeval is pretty bad, but I like Being Human. And it's scads better than the US version.

Steven Erikson(Lundin) is the most notable pure fantasy writer on there. Moorcock is probably the most notable fantasy author on the list, but he also does scifi(though his most popular works are fantasy).

Science is an embarrasment to the BBC. Their TV coverage is meant to be "inclusive", so they don't like technical terms and abstract thoughts - only tangible, here-and-now stuff. They are so scared of accusations of elitism (as if the "elite" weren't entitled to TV programmes, or views) that they try their hardest to dumb down every aspect of their content.

Partly it's because they are staffed mainly by arts graduates (who don't like being made to appear ignorant, with concepts they don't understand) , and

Hasn't the BBC always hated SciFi? There is no point having tax payer money and zero accountability if you aren't going to create pretentious crap and sad reality tv. The Python days have long since been over. The last Brit sci-fi I remember that was any good was Red Dwarf back in the '80s, and that was Channel 4. The only long-running TV sci-fi was Babylon 5... and that was Channel 4. Pretty much everything since (Star Trek / Stargate / etc) has all been Sky.

Looking at the WBN book list [worldbooknight.org], I saw Northern Lights by Philip Pullman (whose name I didn't notice among the signatories).

I'm not familiar with most of the other books on the list, but out of the 25, there is certainly at least "a single SF, fantasy or horror". Unless... perhaps the ranks of the excluded believe Pullman's book to be factual?

You don't see anything odd that a show sub-titled "The Books We Really Read" ignored nearly all popular books and focused on a very narrow subset favored by self-appointed elite? I assumed that "We" referred to the general public, but apparently I was wrong. BBC was using the royal "We".

Sure, most popular entertainment is crap. So is most of the "Literary Fiction" genre. Sturgeon's Law applies to all writing: 90% of everything is crap. The BBC should cover the 10% that is good, which is not limited to any o

I seem to recall that attitude about sci-fi (or specifically, that attitude as expressed by a specific vanity press) marked the genesis of Atlanta Nights [wikipedia.org], a book that could only have been produced by an author well-versed in believable storylines, set in conditions that exist today, with believable every-day characters. Perhaps it's time for a sequel?

The quality of writing in science fiction is worse than in any other genre. Most people pick up something and are so turned off that they never want to read another one. I'm saying probably less than 1% of sci fi novels are worth reading. Of the most famous authors, Heinlein, for example, published around 100 novels. But of those 100, only 1 or 2 were good. And so it is for the rest. You pick one up at the bookstore and chances are, it is garbage. There is no filter for sorting through the drek.

The same short-sighted analysis could be made about any genre.

On the other hand, most of Heinlein's books are good, actually; some are very good - "Time enough for love", for instance. Asimov published who-knows-how-many books, and virtually all of them are excelent. Frank Herbert published the Dune series; if you didn't like those, I'd be inclined to distrust your judgement even further.

Heinlein benefited from writing most of his stuff in an era where his manuscripts were ruthlessly edited for content and length. His later, unedited, stuff is garbage, as are the "uncut" versions of his older stuff.

Frank Herbert and Heinlein were both proverbial 800 pound gorillas. Both were best when their work was heavily edited. Both later in life got full of themselves and started pumping out works that no editor would dare edit for fear that they'd lose their rock star author.

The first Dune was good, after the first 20 pages or so. It took me about 3 or 4 attempts before I finally got "into" it enough. I wasn't impressed enough to tackle the rest of the series. Just because you happen to think the entire ser

Asimov published who-knows-how-many books, and virtually all of them are (sic) excelent.

Not really. Much of his awful stuff has been forgotten. "Norby, the Mixed-up Robot" (and its sequels, including "Norby and the Lost Princes"), "Young Mutants", "Cosmic Knights", "Lucky Starr and the Pirates of the Asteroids", "Still More Lecherous Limericks", "The Subatomic Monster " and "Why Does Litter Cause Problems?" are, rightfully, forgotten. Asimov wrote over 300 books, of which maybe 30 are still read. 30 good books is a decent record for an author, but "virtually all are excellent" exaggerates hi

I liked your observation better when Theodore Sturgeon made it: 90% of everything is crap. Of course, you seem to be claiming that the value is more like 99%, but we all know that 95% of all statistics are made up on the fly.

News flash: Most other genre fiction is crap, too. For that matter, most mainstream fiction doesn't pass the test of time and is quickly forgotten, if it ever was considered "literature" in the first place.

As for filters, I would suggest that you start paying attention to book reviews

It's a little religion heavy. I mean, I know god is in the title, but it kinda permeates throughout the entire novel. I got the feeling that "We've tried hundreds of religions" was supposed to be shocking, but it just fell flat with me.

Then there's the whole premise of the Motie's cycle is that they MUST have children to survive. And the resulting overpopulation stresses their resources to a breaking point. Except that Masters and Browns can mate to make steril